The Right Enemies to Have

by: David Sirota

Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 18:19


My dad used to tell me that when you watch baseball and you see a fly ball hit into the outfield, you have to watch the outfielders and not the ball to get a sense of where the ball is going. It can be the same thing in politics - you often have to watch the reaction of key sets of people to understand the policy implications of a given move.

So in light of that, when Karl Rove and the conservative commentariat are praising a president's move - any president's - it's a sign that the move is an out. However, when corporate lobbyists and right-wing think tanks are criticizing a president's move, that's a great sign that it's going to be an extra-base hit - and that's exactly what's happening in the wake of the news about trade critic Rep. Xavier Becerra being appointed the next U.S. Trade Representative:

"We're pretty concerned about some of the past statements he's made on issues such as Nafta," says one well-plugged in business lobbyist...

While [Becerra] voted for Nafta, he later said he regrets having done so. More recently, he voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but did vote for a trade pact with Peru. At times he has been highly critical of the global trading system, calling it "broken completely" in 2006 before voting against a trade deal with Oman.

"It's troubling; to oppose Nafta is in many ways to lash out symbolically against trade," without understanding the benefits of that agreement says Philip Levy, a former Bush administration trade official now with the American Enterprise Institute. "You want the chief person who has to make the case to the American public for trade to recognize what those agreements did."

I love the part from the American Enterprise Institute hack equating opposition to NAFTA to somehow not "recognizing what those agreements did." It's the old binary frame that portrays those in favor of job-killing, wage-destroying, environment-raping corporate-written trade agreements as Serious and Enlightened and those who want a new trade model as Know-Nothing Luddites.

Becerra likely knows all to well what NAFTA did. It's not that hard to see it when you walk the streets of many places in the United States, or when you bother to simply look at the data. We're going to need a trade representative who understands the pitfalls of our current policies in order to make sure, as Businessweek says, that the jobs created by the economic rescue package are created here in America, and not abroad.

The fact that his nomination has corporate lobbyists and the conservative D.C. Establishment worried is a very good thing indeed.

David Sirota :: The Right Enemies to Have

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I am also excited about the prospect of highspeed rail (4.00 / 2)
finally being taken seriously.



And on that last sentence of your post, David... (4.00 / 4)
...we are very much in agreement.


Yes, I like that also. (4.00 / 6)
I think Obama will be mixed for progressive populists.  I do like his reafffirmance of support for EFCA.  That is a biggie, for if we can grow unions, we can create a movement for fundamental change in the future.  This is a relativley good indication on trade.  

I think we'll agree sometimes with Obama and disagree sometimes.  And it's okay.


I live in CA-31 (4.00 / 4)
Rep. Becerra is my Rep and had lobbied him on CAFTA and the Peru deal.  He is definitely a person that will be concerned about environmental, worker rights and intellectual property language in future trade deals.  My concern is that he was the House Whip for the Peru deal and when I spoke with his staff they had a tin ear to the fact that most major environmental groups and labor groups were against/no position the Peru deal.  I am not sure if his legislative staff was playing dumb but they seemed to not understand the implications of many of the Intellectual Property right language in the agreement.  And they were not concerned with the fact that much of the labor and environmental language in the Peru deal was not in the body of the agreement, but in a less enforceable preamble.  If I remember correctly.

I think a good choice, but he will still need to be educated by the like of you David.

Peace
Matthew


Can we talk about the Peru deal? (4.00 / 1)
My understanding was that we already had no (or rare?) import duties on things imported from Peru (mainly asparagus), and this bill was designed to help our goods enter Peru on an equal playing field with other countries -- in particular, so that we could export wheat to them just as Canada and Argentina already do, as well as agricultural machinery.  Is that accurate, and if so, are the perceived harms of the Peru FTA just things which Peruvians might suffer, as opposed to Americans?

[ Parent ]
Free trade is free trade - (4.00 / 3)
an opportunity for capital to screw labor in all cases.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

[ Parent ]
err ... (4.00 / 2)
... to the extent you think that's true, doesn't that happen in any management-labor situation?  I'd like to move beyond simplistic Marxist sloganeering to the facts.

[ Parent ]
Sorry - (4.00 / 6)
it's all that I've got, being a Marxist.

Yep - happens in almost all management-labor situations. It's just particularly more egregious nowadays, what with Free Trade and all.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?


[ Parent ]
yes and also in any rich-country poor-country context ;) (4.00 / 4)
what's wrong with marxist analysis of global trade anyway?  it's sort of useful for understanding it, even if you don't agree with particular forms of it or much of the project.

[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
That's why management-labour relations are always a problem requiring intervention on the side of labour.

The strong have very little incentive not to screw the weak unless there is a stronger force to hold them back.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Granted. (4.00 / 1)
Let me try to limit the question: given that other wealthy countries like Canada are already exporting the same goods to Peru, why shouldn't our growers on the same terms?

[ Parent ]
I'll give it a try. (0.00 / 0)
You say "growers", so you have some explicit agricultural product(s) in mind?  Wheat and corn jump to mind, because I don't think that Peruvians are buying too much Canadian lumber.  If that's the case, do you accept the idea that NAFTA has uprooted a minimum of 6 million campesinos in Mexico alone, because the indigenous maize farmers could not compete with cheap (on paper, so to speak) U.S. corn?  If not, I guess that I'll have to see if I can find some sources.  Actually, David probably knows where to find the data/estimates easier than I.

If so, I rest my case in the sense that Canada shouldn't be selling so-called cheap grain to Latin America either.  And, if you don't mind the additional lecture, it is "so-called cheap", because the fuel for machinery; the petro-based fertilizers and pesticides; and the fuel to transport the grain to South America are not actually cheap.  It is all quite dearly bought by us via military budgets and 'foreign aid' to preserve the petro world order; via tax breaks such as depletion allowances; via government funding of the DOE (the petroleum research and propaganda center); via use of our tax money to fund maintenance of automobile-oriented infrastructure; via lack of real funding for alternatives to the petroleum-based transportation system; via health and environmental effects; and via bunches of other things that I'm forgetting about at the moment 'cause it's getting late.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?


[ Parent ]
Apparently ... (0.00 / 0)
... it's mostly wheat that Peru wants in -- they can't grow nearly enough there (and love their pasta) -- while they are exporters of artichokes, asparagus and metals.  

I can certainly accept the "well, Canada shouldn't be doing it either" argument, but since they are -- having signed a free trade pact with Peru earlier this year -- what then?


[ Parent ]
Not sure on the details (0.00 / 0)
But as I remember a majority of the problems in the agreement were bad for Peru  a la "Shock Doctrine" policies.  

[ Parent ]
Adam, haven't I given you this tutorial before? (4.00 / 1)
These free trade pacts aren't just about a market, it's about creating rules and conditions that are almost always great for multi-national corporations and shitty for workers in all countries involved.

People get confused when a deal like Peru is said to be like NAFTA, cause it's bilateral. The point is that it contains many of the same regressive provisions, some of which are cited by the Citizens Trade Campaign.

http://www.citizenstrade.org/p...

Extraordinary Foreign Investor Rights and Investor-State Enforcement
• Not one word was changed in the FTAs' NAFTA/CAFTA style foreign investor chapters that promote off-shoring and subject our domestic environmental, zoning, health and other public interest policies to challenge directly by foreign investors in foreign tribunals. These FTAs also allow challenges by foreign investors in foreign tribunals of timber, mining, construction and other concession contracts with the U.S. federal government. The investment chapter still affords foreign investors greater rights than those enjoyed by U.S. investors.  

Procurement provisions  
• The FTAs' procurement rules subject many common federal and state procurement policies to challenge in trade tribunals and directly forbid other common procurement policies. These FTAs' procurement rules continue the NAFTA/CAFTA ban on anti-off-shoring and Buy America policies and expose U.S. renewable energy, recycled content and other requirements to challenge.

Agriculture provisions
• The amended text does not address the problems in the NAFTA-style agriculture trade rules that have simultaneously undermined U.S. producers' ability to earn a fair price for their crops at home and in the global market place. Multinational grain trading and food processing companies
have made enormous profits while farmers on both ends have been hurt. Continuing this model is projected to increase hunger; illicit drug cultivation; undocumented migration; and continue the race to the bottom for commodity prices, pitting farmer against farmer and country against
country to see who can produce food the cheapest, regardless of standards on labor, the environment or food safety.

Access to medicines provisions
• While the amended text of these FTAs removes the most egregious, CAFTA-based, provisions limiting the access to affordable medicines, the text still includes NAFTA provisions that undermine the right to affordable medicines for poorer countries contained in the WTO's Doha Declaration.

Food safety provisions
• The amended text does not address limits on imported food safety and inspection. These FTAs still contain language requiring the United States to accept imported food that does not meet our safety standards.

These problems sound technical, but their impact is very concrete. From what I gather, the foreign investor rules are especially troubling. Here's what Edwards said about Peru and its three brethren (Columbia, Panama, South Korea.)

The four trade deals which have been proposed establish expansive investor rights that actually create incentives to further relocate U.S. jobs overseas, by compensating corporations if our environmental, health or even local zoning laws allegedly undermine their expected profits. They also unfairly allow foreign corporations to challenge many of our laws.

That's really just the beginning. The impact can be especially large (and hard to explain and understand) on the Peruvian end. Many labor and citizens action groups in Peru (and some here) oppose the deal because of its potential impact on the social security system (courtesy of Ciitbank.) That is, it would lock in Peru's failed privatization of social security.

I don't really understand it--see if you do:
http://www.citizen.org/documen...

In simplest terms, the problem involves provisions of the Peru FTA that empower foreign investors to demand compensation in United Nations (UN) and World Bank tribunals for government actions that undermine their expected future profits as an investor in Peru. Under these terms, if Peru reversed its privatization, Citibank could use the FTA to seek Peruvian government compensation for its loss of future revenue caused by the "nationalization" of its investment in providing private retirement accounts. The FTA has an exception that would forbid the U.S. government from suing in an FTA tribunal for the loss of financial service market access in private retirement accounts if the privatization were reversed. Thus, while the FTA has safeguards for Peru's legal right to reverse the privatization, the FTA undermines Peru's practical ability to exercise those legal rights. This is the case because if Peru acted to exercise its rights to terminate market access in private retirement accounts, it could be confronted with foreign investor demands for major compensation.

Hard to understand, just the way Citibank wants it.

I could go on and on. The point is these deal are about the unnecessary and dangerous provisions that benefit the rich.



[ Parent ]
yeah, I don't get that either. (0.00 / 0)
Are we really concerned with the relocation of American jobs to Peru?  Mexico, sure, granted.  But Peru?

[ Parent ]
Close to the fact - (0.00 / 0)
that deal contained a ploy to allow Blue Dogs to claim that they supported environmental and labor 'regulations'. There was a section that: 1) let the administration decide that 2) there were sufficient reasons to 3) negotiate said regulations, after the treaty was accepted.  How's that for a set of conditions?

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

[ Parent ]
one other thing (4.00 / 2)
I cant remember if I saw it here or on Kos but when Becerra was in line to be the new DCCC chair people were saying that it did not make sense since Becerra had raised so LITTLE money for his colleagues or even himself.  That may be the reason the lobbyists are upset.  He owes to few people favors.

Gosh, sounds similar to Obama in that respect (4.00 / 1)
The following almost paraphrases Chomsky from a recent quick hit:
He owes to few people favors.


[ Parent ]
Sounds like Becerra is against -only- bad Free Trade agreements (4.00 / 2)
And that's OK in my book. Good Free Trade agreements (which seem rare lately) increase the economic pie in a way that is shared by all.

Progressive Punch (4.00 / 2)
Becerra has two "bad" votes on trade pacts (and lots of good votes) but he also has a perfect record on protecting jobs from outsourcing.  Overall, he's pretty good.  His basckground is pretty good, too: an inner city high school and working class family plus a BA in economics and JD, both from Stanford.  Sounds like he knows the score and knows the fine points as well.

Excellent, Excellent Post (0.00 / 0)
I love discussing the verities of human nature, what Hume called The Science of Man.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search